This sort of thing annoys non disabled people

insured

krisskross wrote: »

I am astounded that you would trawl through someone's post history to find a thread that is over 4 years old.

It did not take much "trawling". I commented on the thread, and my own post history is so small that "trawling" is not necessary. Just a memory for hypocrisy.

sparkycat2

pipkin71 wrote: »

as someone is sure to report if there is a decrease in condition.

Many people understate their care and mobility needs, too proud to admit needing help, embarassed about detailing their problems or doing so causes them distress or they feel stigma about detailing say mental health issues, scared of being put in to a care home if they admit they need help can not cope.

Errata

*Chattie* wrote: »

There are very few posts on here by Cllr (alleged) CKhalvashi where he doesn't attempt to brag about his cars/houses/how much he earns/pays for anything so bragging about the price of his car on a thread in this board doesn't surprise me.

He says he claims it mainly for the BB yet as a local/town/county cllr (for which he claims £50k annual expenses) I would have thought he could have swung a BB no problem without claiming DLA especially as allegedly his GF is the Cllr for Parking Services (?) whom he uses to get off his parking tickets.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=53591753&postcount=14

Did he ever allege which council he was elected to? And does his wife know about his girlfriend?

sparkycat2

Dunroamin wrote: »

Thank you for cut and pasting the ways in which the DWP try to identify fraud although this doesn't show that they are successful or that they know the true extent of it.

Your previous post was that the DWP down played fraud, that they underestimate it on purpose.

The DWP fraud estimates are based on best practice, extrapolating off random sample testing. I also pointed out the issue with DLA in how fraud is defined as far as gradual changes in health condition and variable conditions.

The DWP is not disinterested in fraud the fraud department is ever growing, with a ever increasing budget and increasing resources being deployed to tackle fraud as well as private sector contractors being brought in on payment by results contracts to also target benefit fraud.

The government and media has been playing up fraud for years, people on average now believe that 30 in 100 disability claimants are falsely claiming.

Fraud is being disingenuously used to justify to the public replacing IB and DLA with new benefits with different "more stringent" assessment systems and "more regular re-assessments" Insinuation of mass fraud is also used to undermine criticism of the welfare changes removing so many people from eligibility.

sparkycat2

pipkin71 wrote: »

This is true in some cases.

I was awarded DLA indefinitely.

Following some new treatment, I informed the DSS as there was a possibility of improvement. The indefinite award was changed to a year one.

As it happens, there was no improvement and I have just been awarded again following renewal, still at the same rate.

General consensus on a disability forum was that I should not inform the DSS incase they removed or reduced my benefit but, my point has always been, if there is improvement, report it, as someone is sure to report if there is a decrease in condition.

It should work both ways.

A spot check of DLA in 2004
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/dlafraudjuly05.pdf

Resulted in the estimate of a net overpayment of 5.4% of budget due to unreported changes in circumstances.
Overpayment of 7.8% of budget, 11.2% of claimants due to change in circumstances condition.
Underpayment of 2.4% of budget, 6.3% of claimants due to change in circumstances condition.
A further 0.6% of claimants who had a change in condition that effected their eligibility but had no effect on the amount they were entitled to.
So a combined total of 18.1% of claimants having a change of circumstance at the point of the spot check vs when they were last assessed.

As a result the time periods between assessments and the rules on indefinite awards were changed for new and existing claimants with the aim of better tracking claimants conditions

SingleSue

krisskross wrote: »

This is just the attitude that irritates so much.

No one is apparently allowed to even suggest that there may be people claiming disability benefits dishonestly when there is not a single one of us who doesn't know someone who exaggerates, does not report improvements in condition etc. in order to keep the generous benefit payments associated with disability.

And then you get neighbours like mine who keep reporting me for dishonestly claiming disabilitiy benefits because I may, on odd occasions, put the wheely bin out (slowly and with difficulty I hasten to add)

One small problem with that....I don't claim any disability benefits.

Matters not one jot to her though, she is absolutely convinced I do because I have a wheelchair and crutches and no amount of being told that I don't actually claim will convince her otherwise.

It is because of her I have not tried to claim any help, I just couldn't be doing with the stress of constant worrying about the next time she is going to claim I am being dishonest when I am not.

Mupette

I find it's not just non disabled, but physical disabled attack those with hidden disabilities, as they feel that they are genuine because you can see their disability...

shame really you would of thought understanding would of been there.

rogerblack

Mupette wrote: »

shame really you would of thought understanding would of been there.

I found myself really envying the life of the guy who had paralysed legs, and was trying to make his own wheelchair.
This disturbed me quite a lot.
The increasing numbers of attacks on disabled people are a clear result of the blatant distortions of the facts put out by the government,
It can be way too easy t concentrate on your own disability, and minimise others.

Leading to headlines like '7% of disability benefits claimants genuine' and similar rubbish.

OneYorkshireLass

rogerblack wrote: »

I found myself really envying the life of the guy who had paralysed legs, and was trying to make his own wheelchair.

I posted something similar in DT last month but my post was removed. Presumably someone thought I was being rude/offensive and physically disabled people aren't to be envied.

clemmatis

insured wrote: »

It did not take much "trawling". I commented on the thread, and my own post history is so small that "trawling" is not necessary. Just a memory for hypocrisy.

I read it just now. It's pretty scandalous -- "hypocrisy" is rather a polite word, in the circumstances.